Sentry (Siege) vs Superman Prime (Guardian amped)

Started by quanchi11218 pages

Originally posted by RealityWarper
*sigh*

Complete bullshit again.

Hulk Hogan is a "fictional character" but he is played by a catcher. That's comedy, not his real-self

Seriously sometimes you should learn to stop posting.

You are clearly arguing like a little kid. That's sad.

I'm not your brother.

I don't have to comeback when I've never left.

You exposed the stupidity of your own claims once more.

I'm glad that you showed that you don't even trust in your bullshit about Constantine being real and that you was trolling all that time, thus making all of your interventions on the topic completely inane and pointless.

*sigh*

Ok, pal. I think that you should tell your story to a specialist in a mental hospital.

I think that he could find it very "interesting".

I will not pertain that bullshit debate with you or anyone else.

You are way too biased and have poor reading skills to change your views because the only thing that you are looking at when opening a comics is to find new material to fill your bias.

That's not my reasoning.

It's nice to see that you are desperate and trapped by your own bullshit arguments. 👆

You have writers interviews of writers whom knows that their own fictional characters doesn't exist.

Whatever they did the interviews to give their characters more substance or not doesn't matter.

[B]The interviews of certain writers doesn't disprove the interview of others about their own work. That's where your shit-posting fails. Please continue doing it, you are making a good job at discrediting yourself. 👆

Yeah. That's hilarious for us, readers, but not for you. That's just sad that a supposedly grown man makes arguments not even worth for a 5 years old. 👆

Have a good day. [/B]

😂

So IOW, double standards.

Writer interviews are admissible as evidence when you like what it says,and inadmissible when you don't.

Exposed,brother!

Originally posted by quanchi112
😂

That's so sad.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
So IOW, double standards.

Writer interviews are admissible as evidence when you like what it says,and inadmissible when you don't.

Exposed,brother!

The problem is that you are poorly trying to sell an exception to the rule, of an interview that is obviously not serious, as a general rule for all interviews, which is flawed logic from the start.

That's a proof of your double standards.

Now read that:

Writers interviews are admissible about their own works.

I don't care if Alan Moore did a plan marketing to sell more books, it's pointless.

👆

Originally posted by quanchi112
👆

It's too easy to wreck DS poor attempts at arguing, that's not even worth my time.

Not sure where the rules say anything about humourous interviews.

If you have them,please post.

It does say all interviews are inadmissible, though. Even in bold.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Not sure where the rules say anything about humourous interviews.

If you have them,please post.

It does say all interviews are inadmissible, though. Even in bold.

If you had an once of critical thinking you wouldn't even feed this pointless debate.

I don't care what you think.

Please, continue to argue like a little kid. That's amusing. 👆

Originally posted by RealityWarper
It's too easy to wreck DS poor attempts at arguing, that's not even worth my time.
It is always fun to watch for me anyways.

Originally posted by quanchi112
It is always fun to watch for me anyways.

I can imagine that.

The desperation...

The incredible lengths someone can use to avoid acknowledging what's on panel...

The pointless special pleading...

Seriously I think that any author looking at this thread will have cramps to the abs.

So, zero rebuttal except insults, fair enough.

Note I haven't even insulted you once. If you can't handle it without resorting to calling me a kid, ok.

As I've said. Forum rules clearly state no writer interviews are allowed as evidence.

An obscure interview given by someone involved in a story arc is not proof to refute feats. Neither is a random post by a supposed writer on a message board, blogs, tweets, etc. There have been too many of these so called interviews which go against what's shown on panel. Especially when there is no dialogue to refute what's happening on panel.

Clear as day.

If you want to argue the Pr said XYZ, then I'll remind you he has also said Superman has combat superspeed. So, either way, you're in a dead end.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
[B]So, zero rebuttal except insults, fair enough.

I didn't insult you once.

I criticized your way of thinking and the quality of your debating.

Note I haven't even insulted you once. If you can't handle it without resorting to calling me a kid, ok.

I compared the way you are arguing to the one of a little kid.

That's not an insult.

That's just how childish your debating style is.

The sooner you understand that, the faster you will improve yourself. 👆

As I've said. Forum rules clearly state no writer interviews are allowed as evidence.

The only reason why writers interviews are bring in the first place is because people with poor reading comprehension skills deny what's on panel so we have to ask the writers to confirm what's on panel.

An obscure interview given by someone involved in a story arc is not proof to refute feats. Neither is a random post by a supposed writer on a message board, blogs, tweets, etc. There have been too many of these so called interviews which go against what's shown on panel. Especially when there is no dialogue to refute what's happening on panel.

Clear as day.

That's where the critical thinking comes in handy.

If you want to argue the Pr said XYZ, then I'll remind you he has also said Superman has combat superspeed. So, either way, you're in a dead end.

I have proof of everything I state in a debate.

Superman throwing a few punches at high speeds isn't even an average according to the forum rules because there is 3 feats, all in all, in 75 years of publishing. That's the forum rules too.

Clear as day. 👆

Originally posted by RealityWarper
Superman throwing a few punches at high speeds isn't even an average according to the forum rules because there is 3 feats, all in all, in 75 years of publishing. That's the forum rules too.

Clear as day. 👆

Even under your dumb exaggeration that's still more consistent than Sentry's matter manipulation, lol. Are you going to concede on your double standards too?

I'll gladly accept it.

Also, what are the forum rules on averages?

Was there any proof that the Molecule Man was not operating at peak
capacity when the Sentry defeated him after realizing that he had access
to the same type of powers? I mean is there a fair reason to say that the
Sentry got lucky there, because it seemed like a legit stomp for Bob from
where I stood. just wanted to get other peoples perspective.

If you can accept the Flash beating COIE Anti-Monitor by running so fast that he rips him apart, why can't this also be accepted?
They're fictional.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Even under your dumb exaggeration that's still more consistent than Sentry's matter manipulation, lol. Are you going to concede on your double standards too?

I'll gladly accept it.

That's not "more consistent".

Sentry uses Molecular Manipulation/Reality Warping in all of his appearances because it is how he manifest his powers.

So if we have to go by numbers, Sentry has a 100% rate at using his molecule manipulation on an "average".

If we are talking about statistic I can pull the numbers easily...

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Also, what are the forum rules on averages?

Let's make an estimation about the number of appearances for each characters and the percent of time each of them used their abilities.

SENTRY

Let's say Direct Molecule Manipulation to Erase Something for Sentry/Void and Flurry of Punches at Super-Speed for Superman.

According to the Marvel Database, Sentry/Void has:

47 + 253 + 9 = 309

Sentry/Void has 309 appearances.

Let's say that he used Direct Molecule Manipulation to Erase Something 3 times (Kree Gun + Molecule Man + Loki).

Let's calculate the percent of times this ability was used according to his number of appearances:

3/309 * 100 = 0.97 % which is roughly 1 % of his appearances.

SENTRY USED ROUGHLY DIRECT MOLECULE MANIPULATION TO ERASE SOMETHING 1% OF HIS APPEARANCES.

SUPERMAN:

According to the DC Database, Superman (NEW AND PRIME EARTHS) has:

2778 + 610 = 3388

Superman has 3388 appearances.

Let's say that he used his Flurry of Punches at Super-Speed 5 times (Sakki, Equus, Doomsday, Parasite, Ultraman).

Let's calculate the percent of times this ability was used according to his number of appearances:

5/3388 * 100 = 0.14 % which is roughly 0.1 % of his appearances.

SUPERMAN USED HIS FLURRY OF PUNCHES AT SUPER-SPEED ROUGHLY 0.1 % OF HIS APPEARANCES.

Let's compare the numbers now:

SENTRY (DMMES) = 1%

SUPERMAN (FPSS) = 0.1 %

A QUICK OBSERVATION SHOWS THAT SENTRY MAKE USE OF HIS DIRECT MOLECULE MANIPULATION 10 TIMES MORE OFTEN THAN SUPERMAN USES HIS FLURRY OF PUNCHES AT SUPER-SPEED.

YET, SUPERMAN'S FPSS IS ACCEPTED TO BE USED IN THE BATTLE FORUM WHEREAS HE MAKE USE OF THAT ABILITY 10 TIMES LESS THAN SENTRY ON AN AVERAGE.

DOUBLE STANDARDS, YOU SAID ? 😂

HILARIOUS...

What are the rules on forum averages? Please quote them.

I'm sure you know basic maths, well done. Not what I asked for, though.

Please comprehend the question.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
What are the rules on forum averages? Please quote them.

I'm sure you know basic maths, well done. Not what I asked for, though.

Please comprehend the question.

I'm just exposing your double standards. No need to be upset. 👆

I didn't even mentioned the amount of efforts for both characters to rely on their abilities.

Amount of effort for both:

Sentry: Needs a thought.

Superman: Needs to exhaust himself.

You are far from making a single valuable argument in this thread DS.

The only think that you are skilled at is dodging the main topic again and again and relying on bullshitting the thread with your nonsenses.

Lol. So I'm guessing you looked, and there was no rule on averages, right?

Hey now. No need for a potty mouth, lol. You're the one who can't grasp forum rules and don't understand simple questions.

There's a forum rule against interviews. I don't use them.

There's a forum rule about averag- oh wait, you just made that up lol.

Clear as day, you said, right? Forum rules?

Originally posted by Stoic

Was there any proof that the Molecule Man was not operating at peak
capacity when the Sentry defeated him after realizing that he had access
to the same type of powers? I mean is there a fair reason to say that the
Sentry got lucky there, because it seemed like a legit stomp for Bob from
where I stood. just wanted to get other peoples perspective.

There are three perspectives on that story:

a) There is the perspective of the Sentry haters, who argue, that Molecule Man was vastly depowered and basically a low meta or some nonsense like that.

b) There is the perspective of the one creazed Sentry fanatic, who argues, that Molecule Man was more powerful than during his pre retcon days... which would make Sentry one of the top 5 most powerful beings in the Marvel universe.

c) And then there is my perspective... the most logical and sane perspective on the issue, which I will elaborate later.

Let me debunk a) and b) and argue for my c) perspective:

a) The argument is basically that Molecule Man could only affect one small town and that he actually wanted to die, which is the reason why he was so weak and ultimately lost to the Sentry. Obviously that is a flawed opinion.

Molecule Man affected whatever he wanted. The story made clear, that he only wanted to be left alone in the one town he was in. He didn't affect the entire planet, because he wasn't interested in the entire planet. So any sane person won't even think further about that issue.
The other thing was that he supposedly wanted to lose, because his illusions said so... Funnily enough his illusions said plenty of other things, which didn't happen. But that is completely ignored by that crowd.

Dark Avengers Molecule Man ripped the Sentry apart on a physical and later on on a molecular level. Show me Thanos doing something like that to a +high herald level being. He can't. He isn't powerful enough. Dark Avengers Molecule Man was at the very least a +mid to high trans tier level character.

b) The argument here is, that Molecule Man was able to affect organic molecules... something he was not able to do in the past, because he was not in full control of his powers. So with him affecting organic molecules he had to be more powerful in the past. That however is flawed as well.

Now we all might not like Brian Michael Bendis for ignoring character personalities, powers and continuity... but he was the writer on those stories and what he had written done, became the new canon - like it or not.
And Brian Michael Bendis had put the Molecule Man in the Raft... a prison for low level meta humans. A bio even said that Molecule Man had been captured, while his mental state was manageable.
So that tells us that Molecule Man got less powerful, while he was unstable... He was straight up less powerful. It had nothing to do with organic and inorganic molecules at that point. It was his overall power level, which dropped down. He got captured and imprisoned. And then during the Raft outbreak he got away. The bio also told us that his current power levels weren't known.

And then we saw him in Dark Avengers, where his mental state clearly wasn't the best. He was seeing illusions, at times talking nonsense, being almost paranoid and so on. And with his power level decreasing in the past, it had to be lower as well by default. Simply because his mental state was unstable.

c) And now my argument. My argument is, that Molecule Man was less powerful, since he was mentally unstable. But he was obviously not so weakened, that regular foot soldiers were able to imprison him (something that had happened in the past off panel). He was wrecking everyone around him and Victoria Hand had to surrender. They were chanceless against him.

But the biggest give away should be the fact, that he straight up annihilated the Sentry like Sentry was nothing. The insane amount of power you need to accomplish a task like that in general... is... well, it's insane. The Sentry at his absolute lowest in comics was tanking hits from World War Hulk and asking for more. The Sentry at his absolute lowest is at least a high herald, while I would argue, that he is a low trans character. And Dark Avengers Sentry wasn't as weakened as WWH Sentry. Yet Molecule Man busted him open like a nut. That's insaneee. How many characters can do that to a low trans level character, without going into the skyfather, if not even abstract levels? Not too many.

Dark Avengers Molecule Man wasn't at his best, but he was still plenty powerful. He was a teambuster, who would have eradicated the Avengers at the Justice League at the same time. And they wouldn't have come back from the dead, more powerful and more capable than him. Sentry did.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Lol. So I'm guessing you looked, and there was no rule on averages, right?

Hey now. No need for a potty mouth, lol. You're the one who can't grasp forum rules and don't understand simple questions.

There's a forum rule against interviews. I don't use them.

There's a forum rule about averag- oh wait, you just made that up lol.

Clear as day, you said, right? Forum rules?

I know what "average" means and it has the same meaning for every characters...

Or well, double standards again, right ?

By the way you aren't worth a damn debating with.

Enjoy being ignored now.

You are rejoining the long list of people useless in a standard debate.

That's sad for you.